Is "Armstrongism" an accurate name for the COG movement he founded?

Over the decades there have been countless books and articles published about the Worldwide Church of God that was founded by Herbert Armstrong.  Most of these books call his movement "Armstrongism" because he was the founder who claimed to have received revealed knowledge directly from God.

Brandy Webb, of the Church of God International takes exception to the phrase.

The other day, I was reading a comment on a blog regarding COGs (Church of God churches) and it basically grouped them all in the term “Armstrongism.” I have heard the term before, but honestly, I have never really looked into what defined something as being “Armstrongism” until reading some derogatory comments regarding COGs. 

I am not at all easily offended, and I know a lot of people can’t seem to get over the bad things they went through in the past due to Worldwide Church of God (WCG) and the churches that split off from them. Bitterness is a hard weed to pull out of oneself once it has rooted deeply within one’s soul. However, I never knew that the observance of Sabbath and Holy Days were created by Herbert W. Armstrong. Yes, I am being a little sarcastic here, but seriously, it is considered “Armstrongism” if you believe that we are to observe God’s Holy Days. 

Well, I would like to set the record straight. Armstrong wasn’t alive during creation week when God created the sun, moon, and stars to mark His seasons also known in Hebrew as moed, appointed time, place or meeting (Genesis 1:14). This term is the same term in Leviticus 23when God tells Moses to teach the Israelites about His appointed times/Holy Days. In addition, Armstrong was not there when the first Sabbath was created and sanctified (Genesis 2:2-3). In fact, I am positive that he was not the first Christian to desire keeping the Sabbath and Holy Days either. I can see from the Bible that the Sabbath and the Holy Days were kept in the New Testament by not only Jesus but also His disciples, after His crucifixion (some references: John 7:1-44; Luke 4:16; Acts 13:4; Acts 17:2; Acts 20:6; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29). Never in all their teachings did they teach that they were done away with either.

A person commenting on the story had this to say about why Armstrongism is an accurate word to describe the movement:

Armstrongism was the teachings of Herbert W Armstrong that many could not be verified with the Bible but they can be refuted with the Bible. The doctrines of his church could be liken to a potluck where some vain person sampled everything that was offered and claim they were all his. He borrowed some of the beliefs of the Catholics some from the Baptism, and some from secular beliefs and teaching, such as the modern-day identity of Israel, he even borrowed or should we say stole beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist who for the most part he condemn. Armstrongism was based on new revelations that he only had access to. The number one doctrine that was kept hidden was to convince the people to support his personal business better known as the Worldwide Church of God. 

Herbert Armstrong claimed the everything he taught was a direct revelation from his God.  that included Sabbath keeping, Holy Days and the teaching on unclean meats.  Then in his arrogance and vanity, he started adding to those "new beliefs" hundreds and hundreds of peripheral teachings. When families started being ripped apart and lives ruined, the church appropriately was called Armstrongism.  They were his own unique teachings alone that were not part of the New Covenant.  Those teaching where then further bastardized by the likes of Rod Meredith, Gerald Waterhouse, James Malm, Bob Thiel and many others who took things to the extreme.

Dave Pack Deletes Many of His Teachings As He Edits His Sermon Series For Public Consumption

A reader here with an inside track at the Restored Church of God sent the following quote from Dave Pack's recent upload of his endless series of sermons preached at his cult HQ "church."

Dave has made so many wild speculations that he forgets what he has said or claims he has had some new revelation from his god that invalidated a former comment.  So far in his series he has published the transcripts to 49 sermons that he has preached.  Sermons that supposedly are revealing the hidden words of God for the first time since they had been written down. Even Herbert Armstrong was not as smart as Dave! For some reason when Jesus was personally revealing to Herbert Armstrong the truth that had been lost for 1,900 years, he forgot to tell Herb the hidden things he has now been revealing to Dave. Through all of this Dave's members have been sitting there swallowing every revelation as if God personally handed it to Dave.

Apparently though Dave has had to edit almost  every sermon he has preached.  He has made so many mistakes that significant portions have  to be deleted.  Shame on Jesus for revealing the wrong information!

Dave Pack Admits He Has Preached Wrong Information, But Members Refuse to Hold Him Accountable

"As we’re preparing all of these transcripts, one of the things we’re doing, brethren, is we’re cutting large swaths of it out wherever there was error and wherever there was any kind of exaggerated emphasis on me that could be offensive. I want all of that…I want to look like a mustard seed through the 49 or 50, 52 different parts of this. There are just some things I want to not say to everybody outside that they don’t need to hear. They don’t need to understand. 

"I want them to understand this terrible trial they’re going to go through, that they can escape it; how the Kingdom of God will come, and where their part in it is. They don’t need to hear all the error that we’ve had to walk out of through this long series. They don’t need to hear what my role is, or there are just certain things that don’t need to be in it. Partly, to make it shorter and less daunting for even the most serious Bible students, who might say, can I really read all that? The serious ones will and others won’t, and we may break out certain ones for the people who say I don’t want to read them all, and we give them a chance to read certain key ones. The three on the Man of Sin might be such a case—this one, and Part 31, and one other that came a little later. 

"So, in some of these parts of the series, I speculated, and some of that speculation is being cut out; some will be left in. But we’re going to speculate here."

Ian Boyne | Are The Gospels Reliable?

Ian Boyne invites your comments:

Ian Boyne | Are The Gospels Reliable?

It's that time of the year when the big American media focus on Christianity, alleged contradictions in the Gospels, and the controversy surrounding whether the Bible is really true. Often, the discussion is unbalanced, sensational, and less than fully informed.

There are certain regularly regurgitated views that have not, by any means, been proven beyond reasonable doubt, yet they are taken as dogma in liberal biblical scholarship. Take the view, heard frequently expounded by Mutabaruka on The Cutting Edge, that the Gospels were originally anonymous. You will hear Muta asserting with absolute dogmatism many nights: "Dem seh Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John wrote the Gospels, and Christians in Jamaica don't even know seh that when dem book dey did write, no name never deh pon dem."

Well, that same view is written in perfect English and intoned with impeccable diction every day in scholarly circles. But is it beyond reasonable doubt? And how would one prove that the Gospels originally had no authors' names on them? Well, manuscript evidence would help. If we found manuscripts dated early that were anonymous, that would constitute proof. Yet do you know, despite the fact that Muta's view is, indeed, held by many scholars, that there is absolutely no manuscript evidence that the Gospels were originally anonymous? The earliest Gospel manuscripts discovered had the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

To assert that they were added later without supplying proof is intellectually irresponsible. Often, it is a theory that determines a particular viewpoint, not empirical evidence. If the dominant view is that the Gospels are folklore rather than biographical literature, one simply infers that the Gospels were likely anonymous in line with that genre of literature. So in that case, it is the theory that determines the view, not the facts determining the theory.

All the extant copies of the New Testament Gospels date from the second century. The earliest (Papyrus 4) has the title, 'The Gospel According to Matthew'. The oldest Greek copy of the Gospel of Mark, Codex Siniaticus, begins with the title 'The Gospel cording to Mark'. It is felt by liberal scholars that the reason why the anonymous Gospels were later changed to ones with names we know today is because of the need to establish authenticity.

You see, when early Christians began to face competition with different views of Jesus being circulated in the other Gospels about him (Marcionite, Ebionite, and Gnostic), it was necessary to attach the names of apostles or their disciples/companions to our four Gospels to establish their superiority. Remember, liberal scholars see the Bible as theological and political documents, not historical accounts. Their concern is not so much historical accuracy, but faith.

So in the face of the Gospels that eventually lost out, early Christians attached apostolic names to the Gospels. Well, let's test that theory for plausibility. First, why wouldn't the earliest Christians have thought of that from the beginning? Why didn't they attach the names originally to gain authenticity? Were they so dumb that they never thought impostors could arise later to claim authenticity for their rival Gospels? Why circulate anonymously for a hundred years?

But there's more. If the early Christians wanted to attach the names of disciples of Jesus just to confer legitimacy and trump others, why only attach two names - Matthew and John? For, remember, Mark was really written by John Mark, who was an associate of Peter's, and Luke was written by an associate of Paul's. Why wouldn't the early Christians, if they were forgers, as the well-known liberal atheistic biblical scholar Bart Ehrman charges, not attribute all four Gospels to disciples? Why not then have a Gospel according to Andrew or Phillip or Thomas, the Doubting One? (The later forgers did, in fact, name their Gospels after disciples.)

NO EVIDENCE 

If the earliest Christian communities were into deception, why have companions of Peter and Paul (the latter who was not even one of the Twelve) write the earliest histories of Christianity? The anonymous Gospels thesis is implausible. Plus, if the four Gospels were anonymous and later attributed to authors, why is there no evidence of any early controversy or debate over this? There are books in the Bible over which there has been considerable debate about authorship. A number of books attributed to Paul are hotly contested even today.

And there is one book that even conservative scholars admit we don't know who wrote it - the Book of Hebrews. Many thought it was written by Paul, but others have said that it was written by his companion, Timothy, and still others by Barnabas. Church Father Origen in the Second Century famously said, "Only God knows" who wrote Hebrews. There was no such controversy over the authorship of the four Gospels among church fathers.

The Gospels were well attested by all of them. People like Papias (AD 130), who was a disciple of John; Justin Martyr (AD 140-165); Irenaeus (around AD 180); and Clement (around AD 200) all testified to the authenticity of the four Gospels. What about the Da Vinci Code theory that it was pure politics that determined the Christian canon? In other words, that what we have with the Gospels are simply those books that won out in the political struggle?

Why do we have the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and not The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, and the Gospel of Peter, which were another four Gospels in circulation? There is one historical fact that must be noted: These Gospels that did not make it into the Christian canon were later than the four that did. You would sometimes get the impression in the discussion that they were written around the time of the Bible's Four and just didn't make the cut because of politics and expediency. No.

None of them was written in the first century, and the scholarly consensus is that our biblical four were. They were written well within the lifetime of Jesus, the Apostles, and those who followed them. The Gospels were written between, AD 60s and AD 90s, according to most scholars.

University of Notre Dame Professor Brant Pitre, in his brilliantly argued book, The Case for Jesus: Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ (2016) says:

"The destruction of the Temple is never mentioned as a past event in any of the Gospels. If the Gospels were written after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, then why don't the writers emphasise that Jesus's prophecy had been fulfilled? That would be a natural thing to do."

That is exactly what Luke did, as recorded in Acts 11: 27-28 when he wrote that the prophet Agabus foretold the worldwide famine " ... and this took place in the days of Claudius".

So Pitre asks a logical question: "Isn't it strange that Luke would go out of his way to emphasise that the prophecy of a little-known Christian prophet named Agabus had been fulfilled in the days of the emperor Claudius (the 40s AD) but fail to mention that Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple had been fulfilled in AD 70?"

The indications are that Mark and Matthew were written before AD 70 and the recorded prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem was given as a warning for Christians to flee (See Matthew 24:15, 20).   Jamaica Gleaner

- Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist working with the Jamaica Information Service. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.